HousingWireHousingWire
The Gibson plaintiffs have been barred from intervening in the Hooper commission lawsuit. But that hasn’t stopped them from further attempts to dissuade Judge Mark H. Cohen from approving the settlements reached by eXp World Holdings and Weichert Realtors.
In a filing on Monday, the Gibson plaintiffs claim that their reply to the Hooper plaintiffs’ reply in support of a motion for preliminary approval of the Weichert and eXp settlements is warranted despite them not being a party to the suit. The Gibson plaintiffs say this is due to “specific factual misstatements” in the Hooper reply.
According to the Gibson plaintiffs, the Hooper plaintiffs argue for the first time that their usage of transaction volume to determine the amount of the settlements is consistent with the approach used by the Gibson plaintiffs in their settlements.
In their reply, the Hooper plaintiffs claim that the counsel for the Gibson plaintiffs said that “four-year transaction volume … was the most critical factor in determining the fairness and reasonableness of any settlement in these actions.”
Counsel for the Gibson plaintiffs deny making such a statement.
Monday’s surreply also addresses what the Gibson plaintiffs feel is an incorrect characterization of communications between the Hooper plaintiffs’ counsel and the Gibson plaintiffs’ counsel.
In their reply, the Hooper plaintiffs claim that while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) was contemplating the consolidation of several commission lawsuits, the “Gibson plaintiffs’ counsel approached Plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss a potential cooperation agreement and attempted to ‘exact a tribute’ from them.”
The Gibson plaintiffs claim that this is false. They say it was the Hooper plaintiffs’ counsel who reached out to the Gibson plaintiffs counsel “because they were interested in whether Gibson Plaintiffs’ counsel would give them work in a potential MDL.”
“In response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s outreach and request for Gibson Plaintiffs’ counsel to propose a fee- and work-sharing deal if the cases were consolidated, Gibson Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed terms,” the surreply states. “This included a 60/40 split between Gibson Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel for any settlements or other recoveries.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that they were ‘amenable’ to the proposal if the cases were consolidated, and they countered with a 50/50 split for any settlements reached with certain Georgia-based defendants prior to discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel also agreed that they would not seek fees or costs with respect to any Gibson defendant. This is far from demanding ‘a tribute.’”
Lastly, the Gibson plaintiffs’ surreply also highlights testimony acquired on March 5, 2025 — after the Hooper plaintiffs filed their reply — during the deposition of Weichert’s general counsel, John Lanahan.
According to the surreply, Lanahan “confirmed that Weichert knew Plaintiffs’ initial settlement demand was based on adapting Gibson Plaintiffs’ settlement with Real Brokerage to Weichert’s sales volume, and that Plaintiffs and Weichert ultimately settled for a substantial discount even from this number.
“This testimony reinforces Gibson Plaintiffs’ argument that the Proposed Class is not adequately represented by Plaintiffs or their counsel, including because they: (i) conducted an improper reverse auction by promising to offer settling defendants a discount off of what they would otherwise have to pay to settle in Gibson Plaintiffs’ litigation; and (ii) failed to meaningfully account for Weichert’s ability to pay and protect the interests of the Class,” the surreply states.
The amount of the initial settlement is redacted in the filing.
The Gibson plaintiffs have maintained that eXp and Weichert negotiated a “sweetheart deal” with the Hooper plaintiffs after being displeased with the settlement amounts proposed by the Gibson plaintiffs. eXp settled for $34 million in October and Weichert for $8.5 million in November.
